Juliette

It is hard to see how the Baker/Hamilton can do anything but give Bush a figleaf for changing his policy if he wants to do so. Iraq seems to have no go answers. I am unclear what you favor in this mess.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I am not  breathless but I await with some hope.

These folks may have taken the job as one more group to write a report fit for a bookshelf.  Now they know full well that the country wants them to say something about some realistic way forward that is an improvement over what we have today.

Two players may be important to a consensus - a former Supreme Court justice who has been a major player in crafting consensus that will result in a practical decision and the co-chair of commission that did make a difference and was colleagial.

My hope is that their egos and desire to keep reputations as important Americans will drive them to something of enduring value. Puff words or impractical recommendations will hurt their "important American" status.

It is only Godot if we think they will not want to bring something. While they did not sign up for something important, I expect that they now know they have a serious obligation. Why should we expect that they will want to punt and leave the country waiting?

I wonder if it is a conflict of interest, that the new Sec of Defense is part of the Iraq Study Group...

or if that was a strategic move to ensure that the military option agreed upon in the Baker group would already have the stamp of approval of the military and the intelligence community.

I do not mean to be cynical but sometimes it is unavoidable.

Particularly give the timing is probably not coincidental, (resgnation and appointment) in that the plan has already probably been agreed to, since we are to get the report in a couple of weeks no? The group has been working on it since March, no? The members have visited Iraq and Gates is privvy to all the discussion, plans, ideas, intellience, assessments etc for the impending November report. So, he resigns right before the report is made public?

Which says to me that Robert Gates was instrumental in creating the plan that he will now be responsible for executing as the Secretary of Defense,

I also find it interesting that although recent articles note he rsigned from the panel. None of the articles which list the members of the Iraq Study group have Gates as a member.

Does this mean that history will not record that the former CIA director was a member of the panel prior to becoming the Secretary of Defense to implement the panel's plan?

Sounds suspect to me.

How very "Beltway" of you, my dear...

I guess you don't know anyone in Iraq, or about to be deployed there.... because lots of their friends and families are waiting with "breathless anticipation" for the announcement of a change in course. And those of us who live in the real world where real friends and family members are at risk, and don't get paid to bloviate by "think tanks", really don't need your condescending attitude.

Political cover or not, anything besides 'stay the course' is a new policy and very welcome. Let's get the troops home and then start holding some of those responsible accountable.

What about Baghdad in a division of the country?

While populations are roughly creating "entities" the drawing of lines and owning of treasure/infrastructure  (e.g., water, oil, electricity, etc) likely will make division an impossible task to complete. Just because the military leaders see a start what do they know of the politics needed to complete a division?

What about Baghdad in a division of the country?

That's still under way. Baghdad is the front lines, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a split and separation develop east and west, may be with the river dividing the camps. But I don't know how it will turn out.

While populations are roughly creating "entities" the drawing of lines and owning of treasure/infrastructure (e.g., water, oil, electricity, etc) likely will make division an impossible task to complete. Just because the military leaders see a start what do they know of the politics needed to complete a division?

I suspect (and I'm no expert on these things), that the best we can hope for at this point is a loose confederation of regions, with a weak central government ruling, basically, Baghdad and helping broker the distribution of oil income.

As to the military leaders, it is probably safer to listen to someone who's there in the middle of that hell-hole, trying to do something useful despite the uselessness of his civilian leaders, than to those self-same civilian leaders of either party. My experience is that those are the men and women who see things more clearly than we do, back here because it's right in front of them and they're not stupid. And if they're saying (according to Galbraith, that is) that a sectarian partition is obvious now, and that the momentum has already carried it past our partisan-impaired political process' ability to comprehend, then that has the sound of the voice of practical wisdom to me.

My point was that what is starting and underway will get really tough when precision is required and that is political. I believe that the military has the best on the ground view but there is lots for the Iraqis to do if they want to institutionalize some division.

I'm with you that the US view of how it should happen politically is of minor consequence. Anthony Shadid on Lehrer tonight describes, at the people level, that Iraq is a disaster. He says the normally resilient Iraqi people have lost their hope.

J. McCutchen

All the King's Horses...

61% think the Democratic Congress should decide the country's direction

31% Bush

{Gallup}

When there is a complete housecleaning of all the incompetent ideologues on the Bush foreign policy team, then I might believe that they are serious about finding the best way forward on Iraq.

Is it 2008 yet?

It's fairly common to hold the view that a confederation should be somehow better than a couple of separate states.

I have so far not been able to understand that reasoning. It invites to continuous strifes over dominance of the Baghdad government, and similarly continuous strifes over the distribution of power between different levels in the confederation.

Furthermore, it would to my uncultivated eye seem to undermine any national sense and thus invite to much worse corruption.

Following the transition through the European and (English-language) Arabic press, I've the impression that the ethnic cleansing is far from accomplished yet, although undoubtly commenced - and totally unlikely to reverse.

Think Beirut.

Agree. Just two days ago a resident of Beruit visiting the US talked to me of the human tragedy of what now passes for Beruit. 

Reading Michael Gordon in the Times this morning points that way. Now we have military leaders saying that even laying out our intentions will expedite and enlargen the civil war. No good choices.

=== What's a bit different this time is that it's clearly not going to be remotely possible to hang the blame on the military.

This one is all on the civilian leadership and their chickenhawk constituency. ===

Sadly I must disagree. The Radical propaganda machine is at this moment bending incredible efforts to seed the ground and develop memes blaming Democrats, liberals, and "lefty bloggers" for the situation in Iraq. They have no intention of allowing the Republicans, much less the Radical movement, to take the blame for this one. They might sacrifice Rumsfeld but that will be the firebreak.

Watch for these memes to be pushed out full-force as soon as all the major candidates have announced for 2008. If not during the Gates confirmation hearing.

sPh

First, having read Gordon's book I believe that he has a good read on military thinking.

I read

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

My reaction is that when they talk of momentum they have run out of good ideas that will work.  I just can't picture the military leadership training that talks about momementum.

Zinni is grasping at straws and contradicting himself in hopes of stopping a bloodbath. He acknowledges that the Iraqi political leadership is wounded and may not be able to do better but then suggests that some more troops for some more months can accomplish something. 

Civilian leaders cannot keep pinning the responsibility on the military to decide what should be done. Civilians make policy and a resulting bloodbath is not the fault of the military. The dance in Washington is to get maximum distance from the decision that is followed by civil war and a bloodbath.

Cold as it may be a bloodbath eventually ends but the destabilization dynamics in the Middle East will last far longer. I wonder what timeframe the ISG is using when reaching its conclusions?

If you all have a chance to what on CSPAN the Senate Arms Services Committee entitled Operations in Iraq. The witnesses were General Abitzaid and Ambassador Satterfield. The hearings are very disheartening for many reasons.

Perhaps mostly that I think McCain is on his way to being the next president because he was the toughest questioner speaking both for victory and greater protection for American forces.

The two witnesses seem to be creating the terms of a "Vietnamization." Virtually every task in Iraq is the responsibility of the Iraqis. Even though the conditions were not created in 2003 and do not exist now.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946

Sorry Gen. Trainor. He gets the treatment that Ron Suskind got when the Paul O'Neill memoir came out. In common parlance it was the O'Neill book or O'Neill said.

It is interesting to me what Gordon is reporting:  that military leaders are talking about the impact if they leave. They are trying one more time to get heard.  They gave him the material for a book and he continues that relationship.

How often have we had what I see as a concerted effort by some military leaders to speak directly to the public and then back to some of the civilian leaders through the media? 

You're falling into the trap Juliette is writing about. This is to provide political cover for withdrawal. It doesn't matter whether Gates was on the panel or not before his appointment.

I think the  Gliss' comment that this is a 'save face' measure pretty much acknowledges and is in agreement with your 'political cover' assertion. So, it is unclear what trap is being fell into and even more unclear what Juliette what was writing about in terms of a trap.

 It appears to matter quite a bit that Gates was on the panel in terms of a strategic move that appears to have been well co-ordinated and will not be a part of the historical record. It is unclear how noting the tactical manuever is falling into a trap.

I think the only really open question is whether Bush will do anything other than stall any withdrawal until after the 08 election. There's a front page article in the NYTimes featuring generals like Zinni which makes it pretty clear that no matter what "plan" is adopted, we're talking at least two or three Friedman units. If there is any attempt at negotiation with Syria and Iran (which I doubt will actually happen, although discussing doing so will burn some more time.)

I think the Baker Group, will push for Syria and Iranian discussions as they are there as a repudiation of the neoconservatives positions on Iraq and their non-negotiation stance. Bush, however, is quite stubborn and he is going to continue to oppose his 'father's advisors' as the articles and magazine covers depicting him as the errant child needing rescue once again, will simply cause him to dig in his heels. Bush is not going to draw down any troops. If anything he is going to increase troops, just as McCain, is calling for and as his own cabinet with their 'Iraq alternatives review' will recommend.

Excerpts from a good article:

Gates and Baker are pushing for more open dialogue with Bush's declared enemies, Iran and Syria, in order to clear the way out of Iraq. For neo-conservatives — defined by their support for democratizing the Middle East through military intervention and regime change — this is akin to waving the white flag or donning a bull's eye. Gates is closely linked to the so-called "realist" clique of former officials that includes Baker, President George H.W. Bush's National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. All three former officials have publicly aired reservations about invading Iraq and the ensuing war.

Gates and Brzezinksi also co-chaired a 2004 independent task force that issued the report "Iran: Time for A New Approach." It recommends the United States engage in direct, sustained talks with Iran. Neo-con commentator Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University and frequent columnist for the National Review, said "realists" are defined by accommodation with Middle East despots and playing a balancing act with friend and foe in the region to keep the peace.

In a recent column, Hanson blamed the Baker clique, in part, for providing a breeding ground for today's terrorists. "I don’t see how the Reagan-Bush era of the 1980s and early 1990s policies in the Middle East — selling arms to Iran, putting troops in Lebanon and running when they were hit, cynically playing off Iran against Iraq, selling weapons to any thug in the Middle East, giving a black check to the House of Saud, letting the Shiites and Kurds be massacred in February-March 1991 — were anything other than precursors to the events of 9/11," Hanson said in a recent column.

Outside of the neo-conservative set, foreign policy observers say they are convinced the Gates nomination coupled with high expectations for the ISG, puts the administration at an important crossroads in foreign policy. Military strategist Harlan Ullman said he doesn’t believe the Bush administration is going to make any radical shifts in policy because Bush is still convinced Iraq remains the central front in the War on Terror. However, Ullman, who coined the phrase "shock and awe," the term co-opted by the Pentagon to describe the bombing campaign of Iraq in March 2003, said it's time for the neo-cons to go off somewhere and "commit political suicide. "These people jeopardized American security," he said. "My advice for Bush is to stay as far away from the neo-cons as possible."

 

No neo-conservatives are on the Iraq Study Group, said Michael Rubin an AEI Middle East scholar, , who quit an advisory panel for the group because he felt the project was weighted against supporters of Bush's current policies.

As defense secretary, Gates is likely to listen to his former fellow ISG members and task force friends, suggested Jim Pinkerton, a columnist and policy official in the first Bush administration.

Your post, Ted, makes some very important points. But it must be stressed that insurgencies are not the problem per se, but guerrilla tactics ...and occupation of culturally and/or linguistically foreign territories.

Occupation is, as we all know, a military task. And if the U.S. army intends to engage in more adventures of this kind, it maybe better start taking that aspect more seriously.

The invasion of Iraq was doomed from the beginning because it is an inappropriate use of millitary force. There is no way (okay, I'd give it a 3% possibility of success) it could have turned out well for Iraq and the US.

If a sufficient number of troops, in particular troops that knew Arabic and something about the culture, had been deployed to Iraq, and if Iraq's neighbor had been on board, ...and if the occupant armies had been less racist in their approach to the civilians... one may think that some kind of nation building could have succeeded. Iraq was not a given failure before the American government decided that alliances are for whimps. But it would have cost a great effort.

But what is missing from the discussion, and what would have mitigated Democratic culpability if it were articulated earlier on, is a policy position that strongly rejects the use of military force as a political tool, using Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq under the Brits, (how many examples does it take?) as evidence that overwhelming military force is useless against populations willing to resist using any means.

Since this is self-evident to anyone who has studied some history, everyone agreed with Rumsfeld when he declared that the fight in Iraq was a fight for hearts and minds. And everyone, except the uneducated public, realizes that since the American army wasn't capable of fighting for hearts and minds, the only other alternatives are retreat or intensified terror against the natives.

And military force is, by the way, a very legitimate tool to defend a nation against intruders.

When it became clear, say by the time of the loothings, that Rumsfeld hadn't been sincere, it also began to become obvious that the supreme strategy in Iraq was destruction of the society, which as such seems to have been fairly successful.

And this is the Democrats' problem. The Congressmen knew that the U.S. Army wasn't trained to fight for hearts and minds. So they are accomplices in the terror against the Iraqis. But this, of course, they can not say. If A-bombs were found in Iraq, maybe a retaliation against the Iraqi civilians could have been defended, but now...

After all, the Americans put everything into their attack on the insurgents in Fallujah, and now they're back. In two weeks, the Americans declared they had pushed out the insurgents and pulled out of Fallujah. Two years later it's as if nothing happened.

One may wonder if there is a wish in some quarters to insite the Moslem world against the West.

Time is the insurgent's most powerful weapon. America needs to find a better strategy for dealing with enemies with nothing but time on their hands.

It's not only time they have more of. It's also fighting spirit and men. If this had been a serious war, the American nation could easily have defeated a small nation at a tenth of its manpower, but obviously this is not such a serious war for America. Iraqis fight for their homes, and can find support among the civilians, American soldiers fight for...
...hmmm, ...
...yes, what do they fight for?

Well it seems that Hezbollah has decided to resort to assassinating its political rivals inside of Lebanon. Today (11/21) prominent anti-Syrian Christian Pierre Gemayel was shot do death in his vehicle.

Perhaps the time is right for the United States and its allies to wage a martyr war.